Questions and Answers - October 24

1. DAVID BENNETT
(National—Hamilton East) to the Minister
of Finance: What measures has the Government taken
to support families through the global financial
crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): Over the past 4 years the Government has
introduced a balanced economic programme to help protect New
Zealanders from the sharpest edge of recession. This has
ensured we are getting the Government’s books back in
order, building a more competitive economy, at the same time
as improving our support programmes for families. Despite
running large deficits, we have retained Working for
Families and maintained its value, maintained universal New
Zealand superannuation, maintained most other welfare
programmes, maintained interest-free student loans, and
maintained the value of these with regular
adjustments.

David Bennett: How much will
the Government invest this year in programmes that support
New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
In addition to the large-scale welfare programmes paying
benefits, the Government will spend around $4.5 billion this
financial year across a range of programmes that
specifically support families. This is up from $3.7 billion
in 2008—an increase of $800 million over the last 4 years.
This includes $1.4 billion in early childhood education
subsidies, $2.1 billion for the family tax credit, $570
million for the in-work tax credit, and a number of other
miscellaneous expenditures adding up to $250 million to
support children in other ways.

David
Bennett: As part of its wider programme to support
New Zealand families, how much does the Government invest
each year in paid parental leave?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I want to hear the answer.
It is a fair question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
Despite one of the more significant recessions in a
generation, the Government has maintained the current
provision of 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, which in the
year to June 2012 will cost $156 million. As I have pointed
out, this is just one small part of the $4.5 billion of
support targeted at New Zealand families. The annual cost is
likely to rise to $176 million by 2015-16. These figures are
based on existing entitlements, before tax, with an
estimated 3 percent increase in the average ordinary-time
weekly wage each year.

David Bennett:
What reports has he seen of alternative approaches to paid
parental leave, and what impact would they have on the
Government’s finances?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: As I have pointed out, the top priority
for the Government has been to increase the value of the
Working for Families payments because that affects over
400,000 families. On 1 April this year Working for Families
was increased by—

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
thought it was fair to give the Minister of Finance time,
but he was asked what reports he had received. He is well
into his answer and he has got nowhere near answering the
question that he was directly asked.

Mr
SPEAKER: The member has actually raised quite an
interesting point, I must concede, because if I heard the
question correctly it asked what reports the Minister had
received on paid parental leave. The Minister has proceeded
to talk so far about Working for Families, which is a
totally different issue. Just in case the Minister did not
hear the question, I invite David Bennett to repeat his
question.

David Bennett: What reports has
he seen of alternative approaches to paid parental leave,
and what impact would they have on the Government’s
finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that is
a much better question! The Government’s alternative to
increasing paid parental leave, as proposed by the
Opposition, has been to make a higher priority of increasing
the value of Working for Families payments. These affect
around 400,000 families, and on 1 April this year they were
increased by 5 percent. I have seen propositions to double
paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks. When fully
implemented, this would cost another $150 million per year,
and it is not our highest priority.

Hon David
Parker: Does the Minister accept that his tax cuts
went disproportionately to the highest income earners and
that for middle and low income earners—over half of all
New Zealanders—earnings have not kept pace with the cost
of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not
accept that, and I am surprised, if the member is worrying
about it, that he is advocating policies like printing
money, which around the world advantage the highest earners.
So I do not know why he is advocating that
policy.

State-owned Assets,
Sales—Progress

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader
of the Opposition) to the Prime
Minister: Does he stand by his statement on asset
sales “It’s a minor delay, but in the overall scheme of
things, sometimes the longest way home is the fastest way
home”; if so, is he still confident that his asset sales
schedule is on track?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): Yes. The Government’s share offer
programme is completely on track. Between March and June
next year we intend to offer shares in Mighty River Power
while still holding at least 51 percent of the company. We
always expected legal action from the Māori Council and, in
fact, it is better that this is happening sooner rather than
later.

David Shearer: Has he read any
reports to his Government about the progress of asset sales
and privatisation plans of other Governments?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY: No, from memory.

David
Shearer: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the question of the
Leader of the Opposition.

David Shearer:
Has he seen advice that shows that in Portugal, Ireland,
Greece, and Spain, where asset sales are required as part of
bailout packages, sale processes have largely stalled
because anticipated revenue was not raised?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: I cannot talk too much about the
economics in Greece, other than to say that I am pretty
convinced that Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First
would probably turn us into Greece. But what I can say is
just because there has been a global financial crisis, which
the Opposition seems to remember now but never remembers
when it is asking every other question about what has been
happening in the last 4 years, actually the Dow
Jones—

David Shearer: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty straight question, I
have to say.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s
point is reasonable. The Prime Minister was asked whether he
was aware of certain asset sales programmes in a range of
countries. Just to refresh the Prime Minister’s memory, I
invite the Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question,
if he could.

David Shearer: Has he seen
advice that shows that in Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and
Spain, where asset sales are required as part of bailout
packages, sale processes have largely stalled because
anticipated revenue was not raised?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Well, the answer now is maybe, because Clayton
Cosgrove is holding something up. I think it was his
application to become leader.

David
Shearer: Is the Prime Minister aware that Kurdistan
recently postponed selling its Stateowned mobile network,
Russia recently cancelled three State privatisations,
Hungary is preparing to renationalise a gas company, and
Croatia has cancelled selling off its State
bank?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but now it is
all starting to become clear where Labour is getting its
economic policies from!

Michael
Woodhouse: Why is it important that the share offer
programme goes ahead?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It
is important, firstly, because the Government can use the
proceeds of the share offer to invest in new public
infrastructure without having to borrow so much to do so.
This is exactly the same situation as in 2005 when the
previous Government took $600 million from the sale of
publicly owned asset Southern Hydro and used it to invest in
roads. The share offer also gives New Zealand savers the
opportunity to invest either directly or indirectly in big
New Zealand companies, and being publicly listed will be
good for the companies themselves.

David
Shearer: Has the Prime Minister seen the
Privatization Barometer report that noted in 2011 that at
least 215 initial public offerings totalling a record $44
billion were withdrawn worldwide—most either cancelled or
delayed until some time in 2015?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: No, but what I have seen is a report—I
cannot recall whether it is from the IMF or the World
Bank—that basically looked at countries that over the last
20 or 30 years had involved themselves in partial
privatisations or the mixed-ownership model, and what it
showed was that there was literally tens of thousands of
them, and by the way, if the argument of bringing a company
to the market is such a bad idea in New Zealand, why did it
work so well for TradeMe?

David Shearer:
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was also a
specific question about 2011, not some ancient
history—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Prime
Minister did actually answer the question. He went on to add
a little more information that was reasonable for a while,
but then it got unreasonable at the end.

David
Shearer: Is he comfortable being in the company of
Spain, Greece, and Portugal, the only countries still
contemplating sell-offs, or does he think that now is the
right time to sell off New Zealand’s assets?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that the member is
correct. I do believe bringing these companies to the market
through the mixed-ownership model is a good, sound economic
approach, and actually I think it will deliver a better
result for New Zealand without having to borrow more money.
I know the member’s policies are to print money and borrow
money but—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order!

David Shearer: Is it his aim in
selling off assets to maximise return to the New Zealand
taxpayer or, given that the value of shares is likely to
slump as result of the sales, is it to give enormous
bargains to those buyers rich enough to buy
shares?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will
be aware, because of the Securities Act, that I cannot offer
a comment on whether the share sales are likely to be
successful or not. What I can say is that if one goes and
looks at TradeMe as an example, they will see it was brought
to the market under what can really only be described as the
mixed-ownership model, and that has proven to be very
successful. I think if one also looks at the number of
KiwiSaver accounts, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the
other pension funds in New Zealand, and mums and dads
looking for investments, they will find those to be
attractive investments. We know that Labour was happy for
them to pour their money into finance—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has no
responsibility for Labour.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
ask the Prime Minister to table the advice that
indicates—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The
member knows he cannot do that.

Michael
Woodhouse: What reports has he seen on any
alternative approaches to paying for new public
infrastructure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am
aware of a couple of approaches. One is simply to go out
there and print money in the misguided belief it will make a
country wealthy. Today I have with me actually a $500
million Zimbabwean note. Members might be interested to know
that when this was issued in May 2008, you needed 100 of
these to buy—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did
that same trick the other day. It was not relevant to the
answer then and it is not now.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion the Prime Minister
was asked what reports he had seen of alternative approaches
to paying for State assets and the Prime Minister answered
that the printing of money was one such proposal, and was
giving an example of the possible outcomes of that. I do not
see that as being—so long as he does not go on too
long—out of order in respect of the question
asked.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I say, one
option is to print money, and you would have needed 100 of
these when it was printed, 100 $500 million notes, to buy an
egg—poached, boiled, fried, scrambled, or any other way.
The other option—

Kevin Hague: I raise
a point of order, Mr Speaker. How long is too
long?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think in
fairness the Prime Minister had just finished. The Prime
Minister was asked what reports he had seen. He may continue
as long as he is not going to go on too much
longer—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The second
approach I have seen is to go out and borrow $5 billion to
$7 billion, at a time when countries around the world are
trying to reduce their debt. We know that that policy
belongs to the big spending, big promising Labour
Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is
sufficient.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā
koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Has the Prime Minister had
any positive responses at all from iwi Māori to indicate
satisfaction with the consultation process over asset sales,
and can he provide examples of that to this
House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not
directly asked that question, but what I have seen are
reports that state, as part of the consultation that was
undertaken, the belief of some iwi that if “shares plus”
had been adopted, it actually would have been a negative
step for Māori.

Economic Growth and
Jobs—Progress

3. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI
(National) to the Minister for Economic
Development: What is the Government doing to
encourage businesses to invest, and grow jobs?

Hon
STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):
The Government is doing many things to help improve the
environment for businesses to invest and grow. I recently
released the Business Growth Agenda report Building Skilled
and Safe Workplaces. This report highlights the
Government’s actions to materially lift labour
productivity, drive sustained growth, and deliver higher
wages and living standards to New Zealanders. It brings
together 62 specific actions in a comprehensive programme to
encourage skills development across all age groups and lift
our productivity. Initiatives include a starting-out wage to
help young people into the workforce, a new skills and
employment hub for better job-matching in Christchurch, and
an annual Occupational Outlook report for parents and
students, to give them industry guidance on careers in
demand.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What
reports has he seen of alternative programmes?

Hon
STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen various alternative
proposals regarding encouraging investors to grow businesses
and add jobs in New Zealand. One, purported to be pro-growth
tax reform, is a capital gains tax, which would slap a tax
on every single New Zealand business and

farm. Another, in
relation to the proposed takeover of Fisher and Paykel,
suggested Government Ministers should be able to veto the
sales of shares in publicly listed companies. Both of these
suggestions, if there were any chance of them happening,
would no doubt greatly reduce the likelihood of investors
wanting to invest in New Zealand and grow jobs. Far from a
recipe for encouraging investment, these policies promoted
by Mr Shearer and his understudy, Mr Cunliffe, would deter
investment.

Hon David Parker: I seek
leave to table reports from the OECD, the IMF, Treasury, and
the Reserve Bank favouring a pro-growth capital gains
tax.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I seek the leave
of the House, would the member please identify the
reports?

Hon David Parker: Yes. They are
the latest periodic report of the OECD into the New Zealand
economy, the same from the IMF, and the briefing to the
incoming Minister from Treasury. The Reserve Bank document I
cannot put a date to, so I will not pursue it.

Mr
SPEAKER: We seem to be a bit sort of excited about
this. The last two documents, I think, are available to all
members—briefings from Treasury and the Reserve Bank.
However, the first two documents were the latest periodic
publications of both the IMF and the OECD. Leave is sought
to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There
is objection.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Has
the Minister seen any other reports of alternative
programmes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In fact, I
have. Another such alternative calls for cranking up the
printing presses and printing money, in a vainglorious
attempt to stop the world economy so that we can all get
off. Of course, it would have the immediate effect of
whacking up the cost of living for every single New
Zealander, and discourage investment in New Zealand. I have
also seen a call for a blanket ban on deep-sea oil drilling,
shutting down the fishing industry, and closing the West
Coast to further mining development, all of which would
undermine local jobs and growth. These particular proposals
come from the Greens, and depending on which day it is, the
Labour Party as well.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!
I think the Minister’s had enough time. He has no
responsibility for those parties’ policies.

Hon
David Cunliffe: I seek leave for the Minister to be
able to table a copy of his most recent glossy
brochure—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Under what
Standing Order is the member doing that? I am unaware of any
such Standing Order. If the member can point it out I am
very happy to assist. It is just that I am not aware of
it.

Hon David Cunliffe: The Minister
referred in his previous supplementary answer to the release
of his latest Business Growth Agenda paper on skills. Mr
Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! If
the Minister was quoting—[Interruption] Order! I am on my
feet. If the Minister was quoting from a document, indeed
the member can under a point of order ask for it to be
tabled, but the Minister was not. There is no provision for
what the member is trying to do.

Social
Development, Ministry—Security of Private
Information

4. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)
to the Minister for Social
Development: Does she have confidence in Work and
Income’s approach to privacy and the security of
information?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for
Social Development): Given what we all know and in
reference to the kiosks, I have very serious concerns. The
incident that has come to light today is someone who has
made a mistake. They are always disappointing, as mistakes
are, but one cannot always mitigate against human
error.

Jacinda Ardern: Will her
independent investigation into Work and Income’s privacy
breach be broadened to include the at least 10 other
incidents reported in the media this year alone, including
a

ruling from the Human Rights Review Tribunal that found
sustained and systemic Privacy Act breaches?

Hon
PAULA BENNETT: As I have said, the investigation
that is going on is twofold. One is into the current
situation with the kiosks. It is then expected that that
will be broadened out into looking at IT and other areas.
What I would say to the member, though, is that mistakes
have happened for years. They happened under Labour. They
happened under this Government. I mean, we certainly have
seen mistakes with other things being leaked—things
happen. I do not expect it; it is not the kind of quality we
expect, but actually human error and mistakes can be
made.

Jacinda Ardern: Does the case I
received this afternoon of a Work and Income client who was
given a list of jobs to take home, only to find that the
papers included a document with the personal details of
another Work and Income client, constitute human error or a
systemic failure?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I
have had that incident brought to my attention, but only
just recently, so I would need to look into the details of
it. But you can go back and look at other incidents. For
example in 2004, when Ruth Dyson was Minister, her office
released—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The
question asked whether this was just a mistake or a systemic
error. If the Minister wants to go back, the Minister
should, in her answer, then make it clear she is not just
attacking the other party but pointing out that in fact she
believes this might be systemic. If the Minister wants to do
that, I will hear the Minister.

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: No, I am not going back and saying this is
systemic. What I am saying is that human errors occur. I
would take it that when Ruth Dyson released the private
information of 1,354 Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services children, via a written question, that was a
mistake and a human error, and not actually something that
was systemic.

Jacinda Ardern: Does the
fact that a Work and Income staffer raised concerns about
the security of the Work and Income kiosks a year ago but
had these concerns dismissed by a local manager constitute
human error or a systemic failure?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: I think there is absolutely no doubt that
we have very serious problems with the kiosks, how they were
networked in, and the access that people had to that
information. The fact that it was brought to the
ministry’s attention and was not acted on is simply not
good enough. That is why there is an investigation that is
going on. I expect it to be answered; I expect it to be
fixed.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she consider
that the Integrity Week that was held by the Ministry of
Social Development in March, according to its annual report,
to put “a spotlight on information security” was a
success, given Work and Income’s recent privacy breaches;
if so, will she be running another one next year, with the
use of more of what the ministry calls “scenario
cards”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I would
say is that this actually proves that the Ministry of Social
Development takes security seriously. It has made mistakes,
and it is the first one to stand up and be counted for that.
But there are also things like human error. I find it ironic
that the member wants to hang a case manager or a worker out
to dry, when that is actually not the case; it is simply a
human error.

Question No. 3 to
Minister

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for
Economic Development): I seek leave to table a
personally autographed copy of the Building Skilled and Safe
Workplaces report, for the benefit of Mr
Cunliffe.

Mr SPEAKER: Before
I seek leave from the House I need to know the source of
this document.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is
the Building Skilled and Safe Workplaces report, with its
personal autograph from the Minister for Economic
Development.

Mr SPEAKER: Who produced
the document?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have
just produced it now, in my own hands.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection?

Hon Annette King: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr
SPEAKER: We will deal with this
first.

Hon Annette King: There is one
more question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The
member can object, if she wishes.

Hon Annette
King: No, I just want to—this is a point of
order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will hear the
Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King: There
is one more question you usually ask, and that is whether it
is publicly available, and if it is, you then usually do not
allow the document to be tabled.

Mr
SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. On this
occasion I was assuming members would probably object. Can
the Minister indicate whether this is publicly
available.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not this
particular version. This is a one-off.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I am afraid that does not suffice.
If it is publicly available, we will not be seeking leave to
table it.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Deep-sea
Oil-drilling

5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN
(Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime
Minister: Does he stand by his statement,
“We’re not environmental bandits. If we don’t believe
drilling can take place in a way that is environmentally
sustainable and wouldn’t put at undue risk the
environment, we wouldn’t go with it.”; if so,
why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I
stand by my full statement, which included that we want to
balance our economic opportunities with our environmental
responsibilities; because it is true.

Dr Russel
Norman: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the
environment at undue risk, when just this month Dayne
Maxwell of Maritime New Zealand said about the
Government’s oil response equipment: “Most of the
response equipment that we have is designed for near-shore
sheltered conditions, and really there isn’t available
internationally any equipment specifically designed to
operate in the rough kind of conditions offshore that we
have in New Zealand.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
Well, that is one person’s view. I think it is also worth
remembering that if somebody gets a permit to go and
undertake these activities in the exclusive economic zone,
not only would this Government be filling a gap that was
previously left open but also there would no doubt be
conditions on that. Finally, as I said yesterday, there have
been 50,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. Is the
member arguing that all of those wells were a high risk and
should have been closed up?

Dr Russel
Norman: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the
environment at undue risk, when the head of the Petroleum
Exploration and Production Association said in April 2011:
“You know, there is no absolute guarantee that disasters
won’t happen, and if you had a major catastrophe, it would
be just as bad as you have in North America.”—aka
Deepwater Horizon?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
Firstly, I mean, the member asked me yesterday about the
head of Anadarko. One of the things he did say to me in the
meeting was that there were a lot of learnings that had come
out of that situation, and that they can be applied so that
those things do not happen again. Secondly, if the member is
reflecting on a comment by an individual that basically says
there are no guarantees in life, well, actually, that is
true, but, on the same basis, the member will never get on a
plane again, never get in a car again, never get on a train
again, never do a lot of things he does, because the risk is
that something very bad can happen.

Dr Russel
Norman: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the
environment at undue risk when a leak at 2.5 kilometres
under water cannot be fixed by divers, and companies are
forced to rely on

robots and relief rigs, and this is
diametrically different from operating in shallow water,
like the case in Taranaki, where the deepest production well
is only 125 metres deep?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
All of those issues in mitigation of any risk would have to
be considered as part of an application to drill in the
exclusive economic zone.

Dr Russel
Norman: How is deep-sea drilling not putting the
environment at undue risk, given that the Gulf of Mexico
disaster was stopped only when a second rig drilled a relief
well, and this Government will not require a relief rig to
be on site during deep-sea drilling operations in New
Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is
jumping to conclusions. He does not know what conditions
will be set. But, in the end, I mean, this is really the
fundamental problem, is it not, with the Green Party. What
Green members are arguing is that everything contains some
risk, so they do not want to do anything, except that they
want to give lots and lots of money away, which is why they
come up with the only solution that that person could come
up with—print it!

Dr Russel Norman: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not a question
about the Prime Minister’s former job as a currency
speculator. It was about deep-sea oil production.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
I think we will consider it a draw at that
point.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that the
Prime Minister is putting enormous weight on this new piece
of flimsy legislation, the exclusive economic zone Act, how
does he think that this particular piece of legislation will
plug an oil leak at 2.5 kilometres under water? Does he plan
to shove the legislation in the hole? Does he think that
might work?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it
is unlikely a couple of bits of paper will work. But let us
cut to the chase here. We are a Government that is actually
filling a gap that has been missing from our environmental
protection. That member has been in the House for how long?
And how many members’ bills has he put in about this
issue? Oh, that is right—none. What he is focused on is
printing money. That is his focus of attention.

Dr
Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. My question was not about the Prime Minister’s
currency speculation—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! On this occasion I
invite the member to reflect on the question he asked. It
kind of invited the sort of response he got.

Dr
Russel Norman: Why has this Government taken a
major anti-environmental turn since the 2011 election; is it
because of the rising influence of Steven Joyce and
others—environmental bandits within the National
Party—who now dominate Cabinet and the Prime
Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Shock, horror!
It is Steven Joyce’s fault. No. It is because this is a
Government that wants, in an environmentally sensible and
considered way, also to grow the economic opportunities for
New Zealanders. That member wants to go down to the West
Coast and say it is really bad that people are losing their
jobs, potentially, at Spring Creek, while at exactly the
same time he is stopping them getting a job down the road. I
call that hypocrisy.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. On other occasions when members have
accused others of hypocrisy you have ruled—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The
member’s question invited a pretty robust response from
the Prime Minister. That kind of question is always going to
elicit a robust response. As Speaker, I cannot allow a
questioner to get away with all sorts of allegations in
their question, and prevent the Minister answering it from
making a few in return. Where the member keeps his questions
objective, I will sit on the Ministers answering them, but
with that sort of question there is no way I can stop the
Prime Minister having a fair old go in return.

Dr
Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. Just to be clear, you are now saying that members
can call other members hypocrites if there is enough
provocation. Is that what you are saying?

Mr
SPEAKER: There was so much noise I did not actually
hear the final word the Prime Minister used. I did not hear
that word. I will check with the Prime Minister whether he
actually said the member was a hypocrite.

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: No.

Mr SPEAKER: The
Prime Minister says he did not. [Interruption] Order! No,
no. Order! I have not called the right honourable Prime
Minister. I am not inviting him to say any more. I did not
hear that word used. I have checked with the Prime Minister
and he says he did not say the member was a hypocrite.
Therefore, that is the end of the matter. I have to take the
Prime—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I must take
the Prime Minister’s word for that.

Metiria
Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could
I ask you, then, Mr Speaker, to check the Hansard at a later
stage today and to come back tomorrow or later this
afternoon with a clear ruling as to whether or not members
are now allowed to accuse another member of hypocrisy in
this House if there is sufficient provocation according to
you.

Mr SPEAKER: The matter is very
simple. As I understand it the Prime Minister was saying
that a position represented hypocrisy. That is not accusing
a member of being a hypocrite. It is the same issue we have
had in this House the last few days over whether members
provide false information to the House—that kind of thing.
This is a robust place. The member in asking his question
accused certain Ministers in the Government of all sorts of
things. I am not going to prevent Ministers from using
pretty robust language in return. I am satisfied the Prime
Minister did not accuse the member’s co-leader of being a
hypocrite. And I will check the Hansard just to make sure
that is correct. But the matter is—[Interruption] Order!
The matter is very simple. I do not want to see this House
ruling out more and more words. It is crazy that we should
do that, but I do not want members to be accusing other
members directly of being hypocrites. I do not want that to
be happening. I do not believe that happened.

Hon
Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. Could you explain to the House how someone could
hold a position with hypocrisy—a policy that is
hypocrisy—and not be a hypocrite?

Mr
SPEAKER: I think there is a difference, just as in
recent times we have had issues of members providing false
information being distinct from being a liar. I think a
position can appear to be a position of hypocrisy without
accusing the member directly of being a hypocrite. I just
think we have go to be—for goodness’ sake, we are grown
up. We use robust language. I do not want to be ruling out
endless words in this place. Enough have been ruled out long
before my time, I think, to last us for many, many decades,
and I am not intending to rule out any more.

Hon
Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. I would like to refer you to previous Speakers’
rulings where using the word “hypocrisy” in relation to
another member has been ruled out. It applies regardless of
whether the term is used in reference to an individual or to
a group of members. Mr Speaker, you might like to have a
look right back as far as Guinness in 1905. I have heard it
constantly—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have
heard sufficient. Look, that might be the case. I am not
going back on my ruling, though. You know, I am not. For
years we have heard members getting all upset over words of
very little serious damage to members, and yet the other
language they use and the way members attack each other at
times have been totally derogatory. This is a robust place.
You know, sometimes we should toughen up a little bit. The
member raising the point of order is not unknown for being
fairly tough. I am not going to allow members to accuse each
other of being hypocrites, but a position of hypocrisy is
not something I am going to rule out. For goodness’ sake,
if I was accused of that I would not lose too much sleep
over it. People are entitled to all sorts of views. This
place is a place where robust debate happens. But I will not
have members accuse each other directly of being hypocrites,
or liars.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker.

Dr Russel
Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have dealt with that
matter, so I will go to Dr Russel Norman.

Dr
Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. I support your ruling, actually. I think “Fair
enough.” So what you are saying is that it is OK for us to
say “The Government says it cares about the environment
but actually destroys it. That’s hypocrisy.” That is a
fair statement for us to make now?

Mr
SPEAKER: The only thing is in asking a question it
would be unwise—in asking a question—because it invites
a very robust answer. The member has seen today that asking
provocative questions sometimes delivers answers the members
do not like. The incentive is always there. Members need
only look at recent history. Where members ask the toughest
questions for a Minister to answer—I know from years of
experience in answering them—they are the simple, direct
questions. They are by far the hardest questions to answer.
If members want to hold the executive to account, ask
simple, tough questions. Do not make fancy, provocative
political statements instead of asking a question. We have
seen it in recent weeks in this House, where Ministers have
been held to account where simple, tough questions have been
asked.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be appropriate, given
your ruling, which I am not challenging, that you then
advise your Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers, because
they have ruled exactly the opposite way from you, as others
have since 1905.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do
not need to take this matter any further. For goodness’
sake, we are all grown-ups in this place. I do not want to
see language that is common-use language ruled out in this
House. I just ask members to use a little bit of common
sense—a little bit of common sense. Accusing someone of
being a hypocrite is not acceptable. If members in question
time wish to put provocative language into questions, do not
ask the Speaker to protect them from the answers given. If
members want to hold the executive to account, ask simple,
tough questions without any opinions in them, and the
Speaker will make sure you get answers.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just
to confirm your position now: it is all right to suggest
that you act with hypocrisy but not that you are a
hypocrite?

Mr SPEAKER: There is a
difference between accusing a member of acting with
hypocrisy and a position appearing to be a hypocritical
position. I just ask members to be reasonable. You know, it
is not that difficult. There are actually important issues
being debated in this House, and this is so pathetic that we
get all worked up over whether or not a position might
appear to be hypocritical. That is just childish stuff. I
would like to think we are actually a bit more grown up than
that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I think all
members, and, I suspect, on both sides—no one is getting
worked up; they are simply asking for some clarity and
consistency from you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!
I thank the member for that. I think I have given reasonable
clarity to people with reasonable intellect. Question No. 6,
the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. [Interruption]
Order!

Teachers—Problems with Novopay Payment
System

6. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA
(Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Associate
Minister of

Education: How many
teachers and support staff were incorrectly paid in the
latest pay cycle and what is the total amount of outstanding
pay still owed to teachers and support staff due to errors
in the Novopay system?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate
Minister of Education): I am advised that the
Ministry of Education is aware of fewer than 100
non-payments or underpayments for the last pay cycle. In the
past 5 days it has also been informed of approximately 390
overpayments. In terms of outstanding pay, I am informed
that 41 support staff or staff have received advances, and
23 have indicated they are willing to wait to be paid at the
next pay cycle. In regards to the total amount outstanding,
I am advised that it is not possible to extract this
information from Novopay at this time, but I can
assure

the member that every non-payment or underpayment
that has been brought to the ministry’s attention is being
addressed.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What
specific action has he taken to assure relief teachers that
the reported problems with inaccurate deductions, payslip,
timesheet, and leave error provisions will be fixed, given
the ministry’s own website says the time frame for
resolving these issues are “TBC”?

Hon CRAIG
FOSS: I fully acknowledge the frustration that some
of the issues on implementation—particularly on the
service centre, and particularly those issues relating to
Talent2 as opposed to Ministry of Education staff—have
caused for some relief teachers and various non - full-time
salaried staff. I note the commitments that they have, the
communication from the Secretary for Education, and, in
fact, the commitment that 350,000-odd pay transactions have
been made accurately and correctly over the last four pay
cycles, but I fully acknowledge there are some outstanding
issues relating to the first two pay cycles.

Hon
Nanaia Mahuta: What response does he have for a
teacher returning from maternity leave at Pōmare School,
who received full pay for the first and second pay periods
only to find that the third and fourth pay period botched by
Novopay, leaving her $2,000 short, unable to pay the
mortgage, and reliant on the school having to write a cheque
from the operations grant, rather than the Government’s
pay system sorting the matter out in a timely
way?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I acknowledge the
angst that that caused that particular staff member. But I
also acknowledge that we were acutely aware and put in place
machinery or a process so that an individual, if, in fact,
for some reason their pay was not accurate or they missed
completely, were able to be paid from the operations grant
from the school so that the individual did not suffer
penalty. If that individual does suffer penalty for the
mortgage payment, for example, I suggest they get in touch
with the payroll officer and the ministry, and the ministry
will do what it can to investigate to make
good.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Did the Ministry
of Education’s contract with Talent2 to provide the
Novopay system include penalties for poor performance; if
so, does he intend to use such provisions in response to the
incorrect payment of hundreds of teachers and support
staff?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: When the Labour
Government signed the contract with Talent2 in 2007 or 2008,
I am sure it put clauses such as that in there, but, yes, in
any such contract of course there are key performance
indicators. I will repeat for the House that I am very
frustrated and disappointed in Talent2’s service centre
performance, which has led to much angst and difficulty.
Ministry of Education staff have had to bear the brunt of
that, and they are doing a great job, but Talent2 does need
to improve its service centre actions
immediately.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was direct and it
was simple. It asked if the Minister was going to put into
action the provisions of the contract with regards to the
Talent2 system, and whether he was going to enact penalties
for poor performance. He did not attempt to answer that, at
all. It was a very straight and simple
question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister said
that undoubtedly the provisions are in there. He did not
indicate in his answer whether he would pursue those
provisions.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Excuse me.
The Secretary for Education has had discussions with, and
commitments from, the head executives and chair of Talent2
to discuss the enforcement of exactly those
matters.

Question No. 5 to
Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD
(Labour—Hutt South): Mr Speaker, I am doing this
in order to give the Government some notice. I am seeking
leave of the House for members’ notice of motion No. 1 to
be set down in lieu of the general debate for debate and
vote, in light of your comments to the Hon Clayton
Cosgrove.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for
that course of action. Is there any objection? There is
objection.

Kim
Dotcom—Residence

7. Rt Hon WINSTON
PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime
Minister: When did he first learn of a German
resident living in the Chrisco mansion in the Prime
Minister’s electorate?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): It was some time in 2011, but I do not
have a record of the specific date.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister
told the media on 24 January of his being aware earlier of
the German resident in the Chrisco mansion, how was the
German national initially described to him?

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: Just that there was a German living in
the Chrisco mansion.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Is it not—[Interruption] Do not worry, we
will get there, sunshine—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! I want—[Interruption] Order! I want to hear the
question. The member has every right to ask his
question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it
not extraordinary that the issue of a new German resident
living in possibly the most expensive mansion in New
Zealand, which he had himself seen, and within the Prime
Minister’s electorate as well, would not have had him as
Prime Minister and local MP asking questions as to who he
was?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and it is
probably worthwhile noting for the member’s knowledge that
in the 2006 census there were 10,700 people born in Germany
living in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: All in the Chrisco mansion?

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister
expect New Zealanders to trust him on his statements to do
with discussions with Hollywood, the Government
Communications Security Bureau, and communications with the
Hon Simon Power, the Hon Maurice Williamson, and the
Attorney-General, and yet on this issue—on his knowledge
of Kim Dotcom—he expects the public to believe that he
remembers virtually nothing?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Because they are accurate.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: Does this not mean that where
serious issues of State and international relations are
concerned he has demonstrated a serious lack of curiosity
and interest, if any— [Interruption]

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask his
question. [Interruption] Order! Order! Members can see that
if they interject unnecessarily during a member’s asking
of a question, they are likely to get time-wasting, I
guess.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this
not mean that where serious issues of State and
international relations are concerned, to quote from an MP
in the investigation to do with the BBC last night on the
case of the BBC, he has demonstrated a serious “lack of
curiosity” and interest, if any of his protestations of a
lack of knowledge of Kim Dotcom are to be ever
believed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know
why the member would make that statement, because, from
memory, when I was told in 2011 that there was a German
living in the Chrisco mansion, that was well and truly
before there was a raid on Kim Dotcom. To the best of my
knowledge, the first I heard of Kim Dotcom was on 19 January
when the Solicitor-General told me his name.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this
a further supplementary question? The member—I beg your
pardon.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do not
worry, we are on track. If and when it is proven that the
Prime Minister’s knowledge of Kim Dotcom was far earlier
than he has said, will he step down from his role as Prime
Minister; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: No, and the reason is that—

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: Why not?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Well, because the member makes up lots of
things as he goes along. To the best of my knowledge, the
first I heard of the guy’s name was on 19 January.

Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—White Paper for
Vulnerable Children

8. Peseta SAM
LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the
Minister for
Social

Development: What changes
will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children make to better
support professionals working with children?

Hon
PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):
Absolutely central to the White Paper for Vulnerable
Children will be the local Children’s Teams. These teams
will break down the current silos and get all the
professionals working with vulnerable children round the
same table. There are some teams that are working very
efficiently now; we can build on that and make it stronger
and a more consistent practice across the
country.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will
the local Children’s Teams work in the community to
support those children most at risk?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: The focus of the children’s directors
and the local Children’s Teams will be on those vulnerable
children. They will have real power, and be mandated to
assess a child’s needs and coordinate and oversee a single
integrated plan for a vulnerable child. This will enable
Child, Youth and Family to focus on those most needy
children who have been very seriously abused or
neglected.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What new
requirements will be introduced for those professionals
working with children as part of the children’s
workforce?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We will be
introducing minimum standards to ensure everyone working
with children has consistent quality of practice. New
standards and competencies tailored to different roles and
sectors will be introduced for workers to identify, assess,
and respond to vulnerable children. These common minimum
standards, core competencies, and training requirements will
be developed across the sector by the end of next
year.

Schools, Canterbury—Effect of Proposed
Closures and Mergers

9. CATHERINE
DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of
Education: Will any newly merged or reopened
schools in Christchurch be expected to use some community
facilities that are ordinarily provided on-site at a
school?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of
Education) on behalf of the Minister
of

Education: This is currently
the case. Schools across the country and, of course, in
Christchurch already do use community facilities. In fact,
the schools themselves are community
facilities.

Catherine Delahunty: Can she
confirm that some schools in Christchurch have been told by
her ministry that they may not have a school library on site
under the new school structure?

Hon CRAIG
FOSS: No.

Catherine Delahunty:
Does she consider it acceptable that if a school did not
have a library on site, children may need to walk a long
distance or take the bus to town in order to borrow a
book?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: There is an
opportunity in Christchurch for the communities of
Christchurch to not only rebuild schools but build better
schools and better facilities to be used by themselves and
the community.

Catherine Delahunty: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very interesting
to hear the story, but my question was about whether it was
acceptable that if a school did not have a library on site,
the children may need to walk long distances, etc. He did
not address anything to do with libraries or acceptability
or distance, which is what my question was
about.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s
question actually asked for the Minister’s
opinion—whether he considers that acceptable. What the
Minister indicated in his answer, when he gave his opinion,
was that much was going to be invested in these new schools
and facilities for Christchurch. He was implying, I
think—but it is up to the Minister to clarify that—that
that sort of thing would not be happening. But the Minister
had better clarify his answer in relation to the question
asked. I realise it is an opinion being sought, but if he
could assist.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I agree
with your answer, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That
is my very point. Now we have got a Minister having the
effrontery to rise and say he agrees with your answer, and
that is what the very issue that has been moot in this place
for a long time has been about. That cannot be a way to
conduct parliamentary question time in this
House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a
reasonable point and I accept that. I took the Minister’s
response as meaning that that was what he intended with his
answer. The dilemma is that the member asked him for an
opinion, and there is no particular answer when an opinion
is asked. That is my dilemma. I try to be helpful to
members, but if members seek Ministers’ opinions, it is
difficult then when they ask the Speaker to intervene when
they get an answer that is a little different from what they
expected.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify. I understand
what you said about opinions, but if there is no
relationship between the answer and the topic, is that
simply because I asked him whether he thought something was
acceptable? He did not even relate it to the question in any
way.

Mr SPEAKER: What it would actually,
I would hope, mean to the member is that there is a
different way of asking that question that turns the
question into seeking facts from the Minister. By asking
“Will children have to travel this far to get books from
the library?”, then the member can get an answer. But
asking an opinion—whether the member’s statement is
acceptable—I cannot ask the Minister to be very precise in
answering it, and that is the dilemma.

Catherine
Delahunty: Will she guarantee that there will be a
library and a librarian on site at each
school?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am looking
forward to the recommendations from the consultation from
clusters. They may include libraries; they may not include
libraries. They may include new learning environments. They
may include internet learning, with ultra-fast broadband
across the world, which is, obviously, a fair distance to
walk.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple, specific
question on—

Mr SPEAKER: It asked
whether the Minister would guarantee, and
clearly—[Interruption] Order! Clearly, from the answer the
Minister gave, he is saying that he cannot—he is not
guaranteeing that at the moment because he is saying he will
listen to the consultation. That is one way of saying that
he is not guaranteeing that. That is not an unreasonable
answer to the question.

Nikki Kaye: How
much is the Government spending on improving community
facilities in greater Christchurch?

Hon CRAIG
FOSS: Thank you; what an excellent question. The
Government is spending $1 billion building brilliant schools
in greater Christchurch. A large proportion of these new
facilities will become valuable community assets. We do not
want to only rebuild schools; we want to build them better
for better educational outcomes. That is why we are
investing $1 billion over the next decade in Christchurch
schools.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. That was a good example of very clear
question, which asked, if I can read off the transcript, how
much the Government is spending. I heard lots of answers but
no dollar figure. [Interruption]

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I—

Hon CRAIG
FOSS: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is
the member wishing to speak to the point of
order?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I can clarify the
question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister is
wanting to be helpful to the House.

Hon CRAIG
FOSS: It is such a good and large number—$1
billion will be spent by this Government in Christchurch on
schools over the next 10 years.

Catherine
Delahunty: I seek leave to table a commentary
written by the president of the School Library Association
of New Zealand, a September 2012 newsletter, that highlights
the concern about falling writing skills and the importance
of free access to books—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any
objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid
on the Table of the House.

Government
Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful
Interception
of

Communications

10.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Prime
Minister: When will he be informed of the
Inspector-General’s findings concerning the three cases
where the Government Communications Security Bureau has been
unable to assure him that its actions have been lawful, and
how will he communicate those findings to the
House?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):
I expect to be informed of the Inspector-General’s
findings when his review of the case is complete. Any
decisions regarding the communications of those findings
will be made then. However, I would note that my own public
statement on 3 October said that the Government
Communications Security Bureau would issue a further public
statement when legal work has been
concluded.

Charles Chauvel: Will he
ensure that the New Zealanders who were the subject of the
surveillance will be informed if it is found that the
surveillance of them was unlawful; if not, why
not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot guarantee
that. I would have to take advice on whether that is a
sensible course of action to follow.

Charles
Chauvel: When he told the Leader of the Opposition
last Tuesday that he had seen the paperwork on which the
bureau relied to support its belief that it had “acted
legally” in conducting surveillance on Mr Dotcom and his
associates and that this material had formed the basis of
the bureau’s request to the Acting Prime Minister for a
ministerial certificate, what was the nature of that
paperwork?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Possibly the
way I should have phrased that is “some of the
paperwork”. I am sure there is more paperwork that the
Government Communications Security Bureau has, but, amongst
other things, I have seen email correspondence from the
legal team at the bureau that supports the view that Mr
Dotcom was not protected.

Charles
Chauvel: Is he now satisfied that the
correspondence to which he has just referred was incorrect
in substance?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think by
nature we admitted that was the case, because that was the
view formed by the Government Communications Security
Bureau’s legal team after it did the review in the middle
of February of this year. But, of course, later on, after
the affidavit was signed, it was presented to the court by
Paul Davison QC on behalf of Kim Dotcom on 7 September 2012.
A further review was undertaken, and it was at that point,
some time after that, that the bureau formed the view that
it had, in fact, applied the wrong legal interpretation at
that point.

Charles Chauvel: Is it normal
practice for him not be informed promptly by the Government
Communications Security Bureau or by his deputy that in his
absence the bureau has sought, and his deputy has granted, a
ministerial certificate to prevent a court from considering
the bureau’s activities in a particular court
case?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I could not
possibly ask for information on something that I was not
aware was taking place. I think I have said in this House a
number of weeks ago that, in fact, the failing, I think, was
on the Government Communications Security Bureau—not to
have informed me that it had asked the Minister to sign a
ministerial certificate. I might add, though, had I seen all
of the

information that the Acting Prime Minister saw,
without doubt and without hesitation I would have signed the
same documentation.

Child Health
Services—Under-sixes and Accidental
Injuries

11. Dr JIAN YANG (National)
to the Minister for ACC: How will
the Government improve accidental injury outcomes for
under-six-year-olds?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister
for ACC): I am very pleased to announce that free
afterhours doctors’ visits for under-6-year-olds will be
extended to visits covered by ACC. Parents should not be put
off taking an injured child to the doctor because of the
cost. Free after-hours visits for accident care will also
enable families to seek the urgent medical care they need
when they need it.

Dr Jian Yang: What are
the benefits of free after-hours accident
care?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: ACC received
claims for about 80,000 children aged under 6 in the last
year alone. Today’s announcement will make a big
difference for those families who may have waited until the
next day before seeing their general practitioner. From
December this year they will no longer have to. Free
after-hours accident care visits will also help reduce the
number of young children presenting at our busy hospital
emergency departments with an injury that a general
practitioner could have treated.

Hon John
Banks—Compliance with Cabinet
Manual

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy
Leader—Labour) to the Prime
Minister: Has Hon John Banks satisfied the Cabinet
Manual requirement of upholding the highest ethical
standards in his political and personal
capacity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): Yes.

Grant Robertson:
How is John Banks’ refusal to release his witness
statement to the police upholding the standards of
ministerial behaviour in a personal and political
capacity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know
the particulars of the case, but what I do know about the
Official Information Act is that the departments do have to
cite relevant sections of the Act if they choose to withhold
information. In the end, the decision to release information
is actually the responsibility of the department—in this
case, the police.

Grant Robertson: Given
his publicly stated commitment to high ministerial
standards, why will he not ask the Hon John Banks to allow
his witness statement to be released, or is that just a
position of hypocrisy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
The reason is that that was an action taken by Mr Banks, not
even in his capacity as the leader of the ACT Party but
actually as a personal position. He has the right, like any
other New Zealand citizen, and if the Labour Party wants to
go out there and publicly release the Darren Hughes file,
well, it is welcome to do so as well.

Key’s endorsement of English has turned this “contest” into a race for second place.

This succession was well planned. Lets not forget that English was told by Key in September of his intention to resign, and English was the only member of Cabinet entrusted with that information before it was sprung on everyone else on Monday morning. More>>

Latest: Judith Collins and Jonathan Coleman have withdrawn from the leadership race, leaving Bill English the only candidate to replace John Key as Prime Minister.

The New Zealand Dental Association is launching a new consensus statement on Sugary Drinks endorsed by key health organisations. The actions seek to reduce harm caused by sugary drinks consumption. More>>

The Government Communications Security Bureau wants to give internet service providers more information and power to block cyber threats which are increasing, its director told the intelligence and security select committee yesterday.. More>>

ALSO:

Labour: NCEA results for charter schools have been massively overstated... In one case a school reported a 93.3 per cent pass rate when the facts show only 6.7 per cent of leavers achieved NCEA level two. More>>

Following a complaint by Mr Leask, the Ombudsman found that the State Services Commission acted unreasonably in relation to Mr Leask and identified numerous deficiencies in the investigation process and in the publication of the final report and in the criticisms it contained of Mr Leask... More>>

NZEI: New Zealand had only held relatively steady in international rankings in some areas because the average achievement for several other OECD countries had lowered the OECD average -- not because our student achievement has improved. More>>

The resignation of John Key is one thing. The way that Key and his deputy Bill English have screwed the scrum on the leadership succession vote (due on December 12) is something else again. It remains to be seen whether the party caucus – ie, the ambitious likes of Steven Joyce, Judith Collins, Paula Bennett, and Amy Adams – will simply roll over... More>>